*World: GM- or Player-driven ? [Frank, DSMatticus stay out]

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]

The *World GM/Player Driven Thread has been merged with the Procedural/Directive Rules Thread.
[/TGFBS]

[RelentlessImp]

Could you just merge all of bearva's threads together into one? They're all identical.

[Dean]

I agree with that. I don't feel the other threads purpose was served in that it's purpose wasn't for us to vent but to voice legitimate complaints about Silva making a new identical thread every 2 days on average where he says the same shit. It's cluttering and it makes the board worse. If you're not going to ban him, which you should but I understand why you wouldn't, something should be done so that the dozen people or so who agreed within a couple hours that Silva's posts are valueless don't have to see his next thread: "Do the rules really matter?" which he will inevitably make in the next 48 hours.

[Orion]

If I were king, I'd just tell Silva he can only start one thread per week.

[RobbyPants]

Yeah, silva, the point is the game can say whatever it wants, and people on forums can say that a real AW MC would run it respecting certain limitations, but the Den is all about looking past such bull and looking at how the actual rules interact with each other and with the players (including the MC). So pointing to the descriptive parts of the book that simply conclude "This game is totally player-driven!" doesn't have any impact on whether or not it actually is. Most everything you're talking about is part of an RPG's social contract as-is. And it's good that AW has good social contract advice, but asking MCs to not be dicks really, really hard doesn't make the game player-driven. It might result in more player-driven tables, but the game itself, the rules of how the game actually works, is separate from the book's advice on how to play RPGs in general.

This is basically everything I was going to say in response to the OP, so I'll leave it at that.

[silva]

And it's good that AW has good social contract advice, but asking MCs to not be dicks really, really hard doesn't make the game player-driven. It might result in more player-driven tables, but the game itself, the rules of how the game actually works, is separate from the book's advice on how to play RPGs in general

Yep. I agree there is a distinct separation between these two aspects, so much so that I called them directive and procedural rules, as per the blog linked before.

The point of discordance, I think, is that, for me, the procedural rules are in accordance to the directive rules, meshing together to achieve the game design goals. While for some people here, its not.

My position stems both from my own understanding and experience with its rules (see my point on "moves" above and notice how nobody here addressed it - showing a lack of actual play experience from most people in this discussion), and also from the vast majority of readers and players across the internet (just google AW review or playtest/impressions and see for yourself). Are you saying that all those people who bought and play the game and all its hacks (Dungeon World, Monsterhearts, Tremulus, Sixth World, etc) are all playing the game wrong ? Really, after FATE, Apocalype World is the most influent game from last decade, spawning a huge number of hacks, players, and inspired games (see Blades in the Dark, which was just funded in Kickstarte by 4000 backers raising $ 200k ).

Being totally honest: between a couple criticizers from here with actual play-experience, and the whole internet out there (plus my own personal experience with the game), who do you think I should agree with ?

P.S: I see a bunch of people here apreciate Justin Alexander (from the Alexandrian blog) ideas. I also a fan of his. And he totally regards Apocalypse World in a very positive light, if that means something. Again: Should I give credit to him ? Or to a frustrated writer wannabe (you know who) who never play the game and whose "game design" story is limited to some obscure supplements here and there, neither sufficiently original enough, nor lucrative enough, to have the impact that games like FATE or Appocalypse World had ? I think the answer is obvious.

[Leress]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Please stop it with the fallacies.

[silva]

Please stop dodging my argument about "moves".

Here lemme facilitate it for you:

Player "moves".

The ones from enterpreneur playbooks (Hardholder, Operator, Hocus, etc) are specially disruptive for the current "game-state" (since they can obligate the GM to produce entire entites or events from scratch, depending on what the player chooses for their starting stuff, or how good or bad the player rolls on specific situatoins), but even simple ones like "Lost" from the Skinner (which makes you call a person by name while on a dream and then he/she simply comes for you whatever the situation) can exert a considerable force on the game's direction. Even Read a sitch and Act under Fire - basic moves that all characters share - exerts a strong direction on the game, as it may oblige the GM to establish pieces of fiction (and follow through with them), even if it wasnt considered before.

Ie:

Jane: "While in my sofa I daydream of a gang-bang with animal masked strangers and, as Im about to come, I see Julius by the window staring at me. I say to him: Come and join us. Then I wake up." GM: "WTF is that ? Are you opening your mind to the psychic maestron ?" Jane: "Sure. And rolling my Lost move with it. I I succeed, Julius must come to me someway". GM: "Ok, roll... nice thats a success. "You wake up from your allucinatory daydream with the noise of the door opening. Its Julius, right in front of you. What do you do now?"

See? Its the player who prompts the GM to modify the game-state according to his (the player) intentions. The GM has leeway on how he will do it, but it must follow through logically from the situation at hand otherwise he will be breaking the contract the game stipulates in its principles, and the group has the right to call bullshit on him.

Notice that yes, the GM will be improvising a lot of things out there, but he only does so at the players prompts. Moves are game-state changers, and thus, dictate the game directions. The GM will also have input in the process as, sometimes, the specifics of the fiction will be created from scratch, but even then, he is obligued to create things that are coherent with the situation at hand, and with the players intentions in the first place.

*Edit* corrected quote author.

[Leress]

I didn't write that.

[MGuy]

Please stop dodging my argument about "moves".

Here lemme facilitate it for you:

Player "moves".

The ones from enterpreneur playbooks (Hardholder, Operator, Hocus, etc) are specially disruptive for the current "game-state" (since they can obligate the GM to produce entire entites or events from scratch, depending on what the player chooses for their starting stuff, or how good or bad the player rolls on specific situatoins), but even simple ones like "Lost" from the Skinner (which makes you call a person by name while on a dream and then he/she simply comes for you whatever the situation) can exert a considerable force on the game's direction. Even Read a sitch and Act under Fire - basic moves that all characters share - exerts a strong direction on the game, as it may oblige the GM to establish pieces of fiction (and follow through with them), even if it wasnt considered before.

Ie:

Jane: "While in my sofa I daydream of a gang-bang with animal masked strangers and, as Im about to come, I see Julius by the window staring at me. I say to him: Come and join us. Then I wake up." GM: "WTF is that ? Are you opening your mind to the psychic maestron ?" Jane: "Sure. And rolling my Lost move with it. I I succeed, Julius must come to me someway". GM: "Ok, roll... nice thats a success. "You wake up from your allucinatory daydream with the noise of the door opening. Its Julius, right in front of you. What do you do now?"

See? Its the player who prompts the GM to modify the game-state according to his (the player) intentions. The GM has leeway on how he will do it, but it must follow through logically from the situation at hand otherwise he will be breaking the contract the game stipulates in its principles, and the group has the right to call bullshit on him.

Notice that yes, the GM will be improvising a lot of things out there, but he only does so at the players prompts. Moves are game-state changers, and thus, dictate the game directions. The GM will also have input in the process as, sometimes, the specifics of the fiction will be created from scratch, but even then, he is obligued to create things that are coherent with the situation at hand, and with the players intentions in the first place.

*Edit* corrected quote author.

How about you stop dodging what everyone else is saying hmmm? No one is confused about your position on directive rules. So please stop pretending like this shit still fucking matters when people have already told you that directive rules do NOT magically make the rules better.

[silva]

McGuy, my point has nothing to do with directives, but with actual rules.

[MGuy]

McGuy, my point has nothing to do with directives, but with actual rules.

Your bullshit with directives is what Leress responded to and you responded to him by saying people are ignoring your 'other' bullshit about moves. You are not cleverly dodging anything silva.

[Leress]

I was pointing out that fallacies in your post just above mine, that's it. I didn't dodge anything. Other people, some who can't post in this thread, have made arguments about the game's system. Since the original thread was about directive versus procedural rules, I was still in that train of though for discussion.

Being totally honest: between a couple criticizers from here with actual play-experience, and the whole internet out there (plus my own personal experience with the game), who do you think I should agree with ?

I don't really give a fuck who you agree with that is not proof of anything.

Now, I could go read the book and give my critique, but right now I am working on my team's final project for game design. So it may take a couple of days.

[Aryxbez]

Please stop dodging my argument about "moves".

In general, how about you respond to the lot of what people have already said about the topic? As been said by Mguy, you're not getting out of dodging anything, especially if going to be claiming others are "dodging" you.

Being totally honest: between a couple criticizers from here with actual play-experience, and the whole internet out there (plus my own personal experience with the game), who do you think I should agree with ?

Honestly, since most RPG fans aren't very smart, nor read the entire rulesets to the games they're playing....Sorry to say, but I'd put more trust in objective individuals, than "the entire internet". Especially since ye don't necessarily need to play a game to understand its merits/flaws, that may sound blasphemous to you, but its been true for decades.

P.S: I see a bunch of people here apreciate Justin Alexander (from the Alexandrian blog) ideas.

Crazy concept, but its possible to agree with the ideas of a person on some things, and not have to agree with their ideas on other things. Like, I could entirely agree with you and even advocate the content of one of your own sentences, but the very next one could have me feeling the very opposite. It could overwrite the previous "support", or they could even be separate, agreeing with you on one aspect of an idea, and disagreeing with the other (or agreeing with the premise, but not its conclusion, and so on). Hell, even that Jak-muffin guy we had really really liked his ideas on Snake skin readings long time ago, but lot of his ideas since being of mutable quality. So yeah, ye can agree with some things, or some certain subjects, but doesn't mean have to agree with them all. Alternatively, could mean the fellow has in general good ideas, but there are ones not so good, and we can evaluate those ones in discussion.


So I'd suggest responding, to posts such as these

[Kaelik]

Please stop dodging my argument about "moves".

Here lemme facilitate it for you:

Player "moves".

The ones from enterpreneur playbooks (Hardholder, Operator, Hocus, etc) are specially disruptive for the current "game-state" (since they can obligate the GM to produce entire entites or events from scratch, depending on what the player chooses for their starting stuff, or how good or bad the player rolls on specific situatoins), but even simple ones like "Lost" from the Skinner (which makes you call a person by name while on a dream and then he/she simply comes for you whatever the situation) can exert a considerable force on the game's direction. Even Read a sitch and Act under Fire - basic moves that all characters share - exerts a strong direction on the game, as it may oblige the GM to establish pieces of fiction (and follow through with them), even if it wasnt considered before.

Ie:

Jane: "While in my sofa I daydream of a gang-bang with animal masked strangers and, as Im about to come, I see Julius by the window staring at me. I say to him: Come and join us. Then I wake up." GM: "WTF is that ? Are you opening your mind to the psychic maestron ?" Jane: "Sure. And rolling my Lost move with it. I I succeed, Julius must come to me someway". GM: "Ok, roll... nice thats a success. "You wake up from your allucinatory daydream with the noise of the door opening. Its Julius, right in front of you. What do you do now?"

See? Its the player who prompts the GM to modify the game-state according to his (the player) intentions. The GM has leeway on how he will do it, but it must follow through logically from the situation at hand otherwise he will be breaking the contract the game stipulates in its principles, and the group has the right to call bullshit on him.

Notice that yes, the GM will be improvising a lot of things out there, but he only does so at the players prompts. Moves are game-state changers, and thus, dictate the game directions. The GM will also have input in the process as, sometimes, the specifics of the fiction will be created from scratch, but even then, he is obligued to create things that are coherent with the situation at hand, and with the players intentions in the first place.

*Edit* corrected quote author.

WHOLLY FUCKING SHIT I don't remember seeing this earlier in the thread, which isn't that surprising because when silva begins a post in a really stupid way, I usually avoid it.

But surely this is definitive proof that silva is in fact Vincent Baker, because only that man would legitimately actually come up with an example in which a woman is getting gangbanged is just a throw in dream sequence just so he could add a women getting gangbanged to his story where it doesn't fit.

[silva]

Dont be ridiculous, Kaelik. Vincent Baker is ugly as hell. Im much more handsome.

Aryxbez, I will respond to the posts you cite (from Stubba and Prak) later. This week has been pretty busy for me. I apologize for those I couldnt answer, for the same reason (I think I passed one from Tussock too).

[Aryxbez]

Aryxbez, I will respond to the posts you cite (from Stubba and Prak) later. This week has been pretty busy for me. I apologize for those I couldnt answer, for the same reason (I think I passed one from Tussock too).

Honestly, I've seen you say this before, for the exact same causes, reasonable arguments come up, and ye "promise to read em later". As ye can probably guess, you end up never doing so it seems like. So I find it heavily unlikely ye intend to do that at all, but hey, if ye got the time to point that out, sounds like to me ye have the time to respond to them as well.

Anycase, I'm going to strongly hold you to your word on this, and I intend your next available responses to be to these posts. Failure to do so will be my incessant reminders, and possibly drawing the conclusion of no genuine intent for discourse in the matters of your interest.

[RelentlessImp]

WHOLLY FUCKING SHIT I don't remember seeing this earlier in the thread, which isn't that surprising because when silva begins a post in a really stupid way, I usually avoid it.

But surely this is definitive proof that silva is in fact Vincent Baker, because only that man would legitimately actually come up with an example in which a woman is getting gangbanged is just a throw in dream sequence just so he could add a women getting gangbanged to his story where it doesn't fit.

In fairness, Apocalypse World does trade on sex. The appropriateness of that for a game that has an archetype called "The Kid" who gains power through having sex is up for debate, though.

[ishy]

Failure to do so will be my incessant reminders, and possibly drawing the conclusion of no genuine intent for discourse in the matters of your interest.

You could also just stop talking to him.

[silva]

In fairness, Apocalypse World does trade on sex. The appropriateness of that for a game that has an archetype called "The Kid" who gains power through having sex is up for debate, though.

The Kid and the Turncoat are the best ones for me.

[silva]

Directive rules are a big thing in every game: even D&D has Rule 0, most gamers follow the Rule of Cool, etc. It's not some subset of games that rely on Directive Rules, they just spend more words talking about them.

In my very humble opinion, I think its important to separate Directives from Advice. As the article from Deeper in the Game says, traditional rpgs have the "tradition" of expecting players to come with a more or less formed assumption of how to play the game.

Take a look at Shadowrun, for example. Before 5th edition, advice on how to play the game is sparse and ambiguous at best ( how much does a johnson pays for a run ? whats an acceptable progress rate ? how to setup opposition defenses so it stays balanced with the players team ? how to make the game player-driven / sandbox ? ). Then 5th edition came and provided tens of pages on how to build an adventure - just to provide a railroad-fest. Is this really the intended creative agenda the designers always had in mind for Shadowrun? Being a railroad ? More important: is there a explicit creative agenda that the designers aimed for ?

I doubt it.

And here we come full circle: without a explicit creative agenda, its indeed hard to tell "how this game is supposed to be played" - its almost impossible to have Directives in place - thus all the designers are left with is advice. But notice this advice can be totally ignored if the players want, and the game continues being Shadowrun. And this is how most traditional RPGs operate, from Rifts to WoD to Runequest to GURPS to Cyberpunk 2020 to Warhammer.

Early D&D especially had just as much Directive Rules as *World games do

Yes! Ive honestly never read the actual books, but by reading from various sources (The Alexander, Grognardia, TheRpgsite, RPGnet, etc) this seems to be pretty much the case! OD&D didnt assume the player would brought with himself "how the game is played" and then just give vague "advice" to him, no. It explains how the game is supposed to be played and why, instructing how to setup a dungeon, monsters, treasures, time between patrols, how to react to player actions, etc. And it makes this step by step, pretty much like a tabletop game manual of Monopoly or Netrunner.

And this use of "Directive rules" in such a strong authorial manner, as an explicit requirement for the game to reach its design goals, that OD&D makes use of, was sidelined through all the 80s and 90s in favor of "advice". RPG became this toolbox where the pieces could be applied irrespective of the author intentions and however the group wishes (and this is not bad thing at all, just a particular way of using the tools at hand). Only in early 2000s with the crop of "indie games" that we saw a re-emergence of this type of rules. I think Sorcerer is the most emblematic, with its gameplay centered around Kickers and Bangs, elements that worked more on a Directive level then on a Procedural one. And after this came a whole crop of such games - My Life with Master, Polaris, Primetime Adventures, Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc.

And this is the crux of the matter here - games with this kind of Directive rules are different beasts then games who just offer advice, and treating them equally is a mistake. Just compare Sorcerer with Shadowrun and see for yourself - Shadowrun is Shadowrun no matter what advice you choose to follow (railroading, sandboxing, playing as runners, corps, gangs DocWagon, etc ) while Sorcerer is only Sorcerer if you follow the Directives as closely as possible (in special by understanding how Kickers and Bangs work). See again: Shadowrun is characterized by its stats, number of faces on a die, its peculiar combat and initiative system, unplayable matrix, etc. - all procedural rules. Sorcerer on the other hand dont care about this at all, to the point of offering various die sizes (!!!) and methods for its procedural rules. Thats because what matters is its Directive rules. So no matter how many faces there is in the dice youre rolling, no matter if you change its stats, or if you add a "Essence" stat on the top of it. What matter is answering the game question of "How far do you go for power ?" / "How much of your humanity do you risk for power ?", and this is ultimately answered on a "Directive rules" level.

The problem we have with bear games is that the field of RPG design is so absolutely amateurish (and the consumers so unobservant) that game after game (including D&D 3.5) is heralded as the great new thing because of its directive rules, which end up directly conflicting with the procedural rules, because procedural rules are ignored or pasted over with mindcaulk at the table. In D&D 3.5, the directive rules indicate that anyone should choose whatever class they want and be able to play the game, that a Monk can fight level-appropriate monsters as well as any other class. The procedural rules, of course, disagree.

I honestly dont know D&D 3 / 3.5 enough to discuss it. It always looked a pretty tightely designed game. If its similar in style to Sorcerer (aka: its design goals are dependent on directive rules directing play) then yeah, the Monk issue is a problem. If not (aka: if its design goals are independent of Directive rules, just like Shadowrun) then the Monk issue would not be a huge problem. Just ignore this "tool" alltogether and use the other ones in the toolbox that the group feel more comfortable with.

And the weird thing is that you don't see how if that is your entire game that it's extremely disempowering. It's extremely disempowering because defining what success and failure bring along with them are always in the hands of the MC. The game is "DM-driven," if you will

Yes, I see where this can be a problem if the game aims for empowering players (dont know if its D&D 3.x case, though). If its only a "GM tells a story for the group to hear while only interacting in some points" then thats not an issue. In case of *World games specifically, both the procedural rules and the directive ones guarantee this kind of "disempowering" never happens (or at least be very difficult / rare to happen).

[silva]

The problem, Silva, is that Procedural rules tell you how to do something while Directive rules are guidelines as to what your goal should be

Prak, I disagree. See my previous post on the difference between games where Directive rules are only guidelines / advice, and where it must be followed strictly for the game to reach its goals. In special, see the Sorcerer vs Shadowun example.

A game which focuses on Directive rules is only a game in the loosest terms because such rules are by definition broad and hard to balance. "Magic Missile should hit often and do minimal damage" is a Directive rule.

I dont think this is a good example of Directive rule, since its something that could be made in a more simple and tight way through Procedural ones. I think OD&D has better stances on the aplication of Directive rules to the formula. Things like when a monster should appear, how much time between patrols, etc.

You can balance rules if they are procedural, because they will always mean the same thing. You cannot balance Directives because they will be interpreted differently by different groups.

I agree. I think this is one big onus that Directive -reliant games suffer.

[silva]

There is no such thing as completely player or GM driven gameplay. Both do not exist in tabletop RPGs.

A completely GM driven game would be a final fantasy game. I'm sure there are a load of railroading shit fests out there but the second a player says "hey, my character ask townsfolk about rumors of my long lost brother" you are )at least slightly) off the rails.

A completely PC driven game is essentially second life. Nothing happens, and what does happen would make little sense, just like second life. If the GM has any preference (like snakes are cool to fight), any aversion (snakes are scary, I don't want to talk about them), any preconceived notion (I could have a villain who throws snakes at people), the game is not soley driven by PCs.

There is no rule anyone can point to that allows GMs to be blank slates capable of spewing random ideas. The fact that humans play the game means there will always be an element of GM driven story.

This is good though. Railroads tend to be boring and mix bags of random PC thoughts are disorganized, pointless and have little pay off.

I entirelly agree.

When I said GM- and Player- driven gameplay, I meant points in a Railroad-Sandbox spectrum, but not necessarily the fartest points.

[TiaC]

Goddamn it Silva, you can quote multiple people in one post instead of quadruple-posting.

[Kaelik]

Goddamn it Silva, you can quote multiple people in one post instead of quadruple-posting.

Just let it die.